Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Fookes, I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000

Scotland Act 1998 (Cross(Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) (No. 2) Order 2000

Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2000

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 2nd and 13th November be approved [30th and 31st Reports from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have before us today three orders under the Scotland Act. For the convenience of the House, and with its agreement, I propose to cover all three in my speech.
	In past debates on Scotland Act orders, mention has been made on a number of occasions that it is desirable to group and consolidate such orders so as to minimise the number of debates and make the best use of the time of the House. That is therefore the explanation for the wide and varied range of subject matter covered in the orders before us today.
	Noble Lords who have attended previous debates on orders of this sort will recall comment made on a number of occasions about the level of information made available to this Parliament when considering delegated legislation compared to that available to Members of the Scottish Parliament, which was considered much wider and more useful.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has been particularly exercised about the matter and in a debate on 17th July the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who unfortunately cannot be in their places today, commented on the brevity of the explanatory notes provided. Therefore, I have on this occasion arranged for copies of the executive notes prepared by the Scottish Executive for the assistance of MSPs to be sent to the opposition Front Benches. I hope that that has proved helpful and welcome.
	Scotland Office officials have assisted in arranging for copies to be laid in both Libraries. They have also made efforts to improve the usefulness of the explanatory notes attached to the orders, within the existing guidance, which again I hope noble Lords have found helpful.
	Finally, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office has made efforts to ensure that the issue is addressed by the parliamentary authorities.
	I turn to the first order. The Scotland Act recognised that in some cases it would be appropriate for the Scottish Ministers to be able to exercise executive powers in areas where primary legislation continues to be a matter for this Parliament. Section 63 of the Act provides for various forms of what is known as "executive devolution". In that case, the functions concerned will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers so far as they are exercisable in or as regards Scotland.
	I now turn to the content of the order. I should explain that Article 2, together with Schedule 1, sets out the extent to which the functions concerned are to be regarded as affecting Scotland for the purposes of the order. That is a procedure provided for in Section 30(3) of the Scotland Act. Article 3, together with Schedule 2, then sets out the functions to be transferred. Article 4, together with Schedule 3, makes changes to other Acts and orders which are consequential on the transfer of those functions to the Scottish Ministers.
	I turn to the actual functions to be transferred. The entries concerning the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have the effect of transferring certain powers to issue warrants under Sections 5 and 32 of the Act. Those warrants are to authorise the interception of communications by the police and HM Customs or to authorise intrusive surveillance by the Security Service.
	In each case, the function of issuing the warrant is transferred to Scottish Ministers where the purpose is to prevent or detect serious crime. Scottish Ministers will therefore issue such warrants for the interception of communications where the person or premises concerned are, or are believed to be, in Scotland at the time the warrant is issued. Similarly, they will issue such warrants for intrusive surveillance by the Security Service on premises or private vehicles which are, or are believed to be, in Scotland at the time the warrant is issued.
	Some noble Lords will doubtless recall that similar functions under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were transferred to Scottish Ministers in the main executive devolution order last year. The order updates the position in the light of the new Act.
	The order also transfers functions to the Scottish Ministers enabling them to give consent to developers to lay certain gas pipelines that begin and end in Scotland. It also gives them powers to approve compulsory purchase orders associated with these pipelines. Pipeline consents are for the most part already devolved, but Transco pipelines and the environmental impact assessment procedures relating to all pipeline developments were not covered. The order will remedy the omission. The order will also transfer powers created by the Utilities Act 2000, when it comes into force, to allow the Scottish Ministers to make orders specifying the level of electricity to be produced from renewable resources in Scotland.
	Schedule 12 to the Poisons Rules 1982 allows the Secretary of State to authorise persons to purchase strychnine for the killing of moles and to authorise officers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to purchase strychnine for the killing of foxes. The order will transfer these functions to the Scottish Ministers and at the same time change references to now obsolete names of departments.
	The second order before the House relates to cross-border public authorities. In preparing for devolution it was recognised that some public bodies which operate both in Scotland and beyond would have a remit which included devolved matters in Scotland. Section 88 of the Scotland Act provides the mechanism to designate public bodies as "cross-border public authorities". Designation as a cross-border public authority meant that ministerial functions in relation to the body did not transfer automatically to the Scottish Ministers, as they did for bodies operating wholly in a devolved area. Instead, the default arrangement is that the Scottish Ministers have a right to be consulted on appointments to, or removal from, the body, and on the exercise of any functions in relation to the body which might affect devolved matters. But these default arrangements will not necessarily be suitable for every cross-border public authority, so Section 89 of the Scotland Act allows arrangements to be tailor-made for a particular body. That is what this order does.
	The British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council operate on a Great Britain basis and were specified as cross-border public authorities, as responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Ministers. The order will modify the British Waterways Act 1975 and the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968 to give the Scottish Ministers, by and large, the same functions with regard to these bodies as those held by UK Ministers. These are set out at some length in Schedules 2 and 3 to the order. The executive note to which I referred earlier provides quite a useful summary list.
	There is also an entry concerning the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. That body advises on environmental matters which are the responsibility of the UK Government and on matters which are devolved. It was specified as a cross-border public authority, so that Scottish Ministers are consulted about the exercise of ministerial functions in relation to the commission as they affect Scotland. The commission customarily sets its own lines of inquiry, but must also inquire into matters referred to it by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State or by one of her Ministers. The order gives Scottish Ministers powers to refer matters to the Royal Commission, into which that body may inquire.
	The Fire Services Examination Board administers the statutory examination whereby fire service personnel qualify for promotion across the UK. In the past, a proportion of its expenses were paid by the Scottish Office and now must be met by the Scottish Executive. Power to meet these expenses did not transfer to the Scottish Ministers. The order will provide the statutory authority for those payments to be made from the Scottish Consolidated Fund and further stipulates that reports and accounts are presented to the Scottish Ministers instead of the Secretary of State.
	The order also makes arrangements for consultation between the Home Secretary and the Scottish Ministers in relation to the appointment of the chairman and four members of the board and their period of appointment. Consultation on these issues has previously taken place between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State.
	The final entry in the order concerns plant varieties. It requires the consent of the Scottish Ministers for certain orders under the Plant Varieties Act 1997 in relation to the Controller of Plant Variety Rights, the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal and the Plant Variety Rights Office.
	The third order before the House concerns adjustments to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. As noble Lords may remember, Schedule 5 forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and sets out the matters which are reserved for the purposes of the Act. The devolution settlement was always intended to have scope for flexibility. Therefore, Section 30 of the Scotland Act provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 5 can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. This allows the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence to be adjusted, either by removing existing reservations in whole or in part, by adding new ones, or by updating existing ones.
	Under the Postal Services Act 2000 the statutory corporation, the Post Office, is being abolished and its assets and liabilities transferred to a public limited company nominated by the Secretary of State which is wholly owned by the Government. That Act also replaces the Post Office's monopoly with a reserved area. Instead, universal service providers, which are expected to include the new Post Office company and others, may operate in this area of business so long as they have been granted a licence by the Postal Services Commission. That is a new body, established by the Act, to act as a regulator. The order accordingly amends the reservation of Post Office, posts and postal services at Section C11 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act to include the subject matter of the Postal Services Act 2000.
	It also ensures that the Scottish Parliament can legislate in the future to provide financial assistance for the provision of non-postal services provided from public post offices. The amendments do not make any change of policy in relation to the reservation of postal and related services, but merely bring the existing entry up to date, reflecting the changes made by the Postal Services Act.
	As far as concerns transport strategies, put simply, this order amends Section E2 and E4 of Schedule 5 to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate to enable the Scottish Ministers to require Scottish public authorities with mixed devolved and reserved functions exercisable only in Scotland to produce joint transport strategies covering the provision of their rail services and air services respectively.
	The power in relation to aviation is chiefly of relevance to the Highlands and islands of Scotland. Scottish Ministers would be able to require named local authorities to prepare a joint strategy to, for example, safeguard and develop strategic and lifeline links within the region and to other parts, including particularly matters concerning lifeline air services.
	These amendments were requested by Scottish Ministers, who plan to cover these matters in the Transport (Scotland) Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament. The devolved power does not cover cross-border public authorities such as the Scottish Rail Passengers' Committee, or reserved bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority.
	Article 3(2) of the order amends the reservation of rail transport at Section E2 of Schedule 5. The purpose is to enable the Scottish Parliament to transfer to, or allocate among, any new Scottish transport authorities the same rail responsibilities as any other passenger transport executive. It does not confer powers to create new types of passenger transport executive rail functions. These would continue to be determined by this Parliament. Nor does it include a power over cross-border public authorities or reserved bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority. This fulfils the commitment, usually known as the "McLeish settlement", made during the passage of the Scotland Bill. This was to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over the rail responsibilities of Strathclyde Passenger Transport and any similar bodies that may be set up in Scotland in future within the Great Britain framework for railways.
	Section C5 of Schedule 5 reserves the control of imports and exports, and Section C8 reserves product standards, in each case with certain exceptions. Pesticides are included in the exceptions to each of these reservations.
	The effect of Article 4 of the order is that the exception for pesticides to each of these reservations will now cover other substances, preparations and organisms which are treated "as if" they were pesticides by virtue of Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. These amendments are necessary to enable Scottish Ministers to make, in their entirety, two sets of proposed regulations--the Control of Pesticides (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and the Plant Protection Products (Basic Conditions)(Scotland) Regulations 2000.
	Article 5 of the order also amends the reservation at Section C8 of Schedule 5 on product standards, safety and liability by extending its scope. In the context of standards, accreditation is the process by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or a person is competent to carry out specific tasks. The sole body recognised by the Government for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the UK is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. It is particularly important that conformity assessment bodies are accredited by a recognised national accreditation body. Their work can then be recognised by European and other international partners.
	Accordingly, the order extends the reservation at Section C8 to accreditation in support of trade carried out under Community law and trade matters related to competition. This recognises that, for UK businesses to gain the best competitive advantage, accreditation must be carried out by the sole recognised national body in line with European and international practice.
	I have spent some time running through the content of the three orders. They are, I hope, uncontroversial adjustments at the margins of the devolution settlement but nevertheless necessary and useful ones. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the orders.
	Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 2nd and 13th November be approved [30th and 31st Reports from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale).

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I should like to start my remarks by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for making available the executive note to these three orders, as provided to the Scottish Parliament. On a previous occasion, I had remarked about how much more informative were the Scottish notes. This is a small example of good practice spreading southwards.
	We have before us today three "type A" orders, the most heavy duty of orders, requiring, of course, the consent of all three Houses of Parliament. Since the Scotland Act team last met, we have been saddened by the death of First Minister Donald Dewar, a friend to us all. We have to reflect on how providence has determined that Scotland must go forward without his hand on the tiller. I am confident that others will be inspired to take on the task ahead.
	The transfer of functions order deals with what can probably be called administrative devolution, which is, of course, not new at all. Scottish Ministers are to be involved with the granting of consent to developers for the laying of gas pipelines and to approve compulsory purchase orders to enable that to happen, if necessary. For some reason, Transco seems to have been left out of the devolution process; that is, until now. Furthermore, environmental assessments will be required for all pipeline consents. This should ensure that pipeline works do not scar the landscape for more than the essential and temporary period.
	Scottish Ministers are also to assume powers to put in place "renewables obligations". This gives them the opportunity to be innovative in this very necessary area of research and development into new forms of energy. Although this may be casting a little wider than what is specified in the order, I hope that it will include biodiesel, because that would be a useful non-food crop into which farmers could diversify.
	The Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act is coming to Scotland and Scottish Ministers will have the powers to grant warrants for the interception of communications as regards persons and premises, and for the intrusive surveillance of residential premises and private vehicles. These reluctant powers should assist with the detection of crime and the gathering of criminal intelligence.
	Finally on this order, it is good to know that Scottish Ministers will be handing out the strychnine. SERAD will continue to use permits for the control of moles and foxes.
	The cross-border authorities order takes us into the world of public bodies with so-called mixed functions--either devolved and reserved, in Scotland and elsewhere, or both. The British Waterways Board and the IWAAC will have a new master in Scotland, the Scottish Executive. The DETR will transfer resources to the Scottish Executive for those purposes. Inland waterways have of course been devolved since the Scotland Act was passed. Canals are on the move in Scotland, somewhat belatedly. Ambitious plans for the repair and restoration of navigation on the Forth and Clyde and Union canals are already under way. It is hoped that the Lowland canals will start to make an impact again on the economy of central Scotland. Certainly, as a canoeist and small boater, I look forward to the increased recreational opportunities, but I hope that there might also be some return of commercial traffic.
	For the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, there is clarification that Scottish Ministers can refer matters to the Royal Commission. For the Fire Services Education Board, there is clarification that the Scottish Executive will make a proportionate contribution to the board's funding, as well as recommending appointments to the board.
	Lastly on this order, Scottish Ministers are given the right to give their consent to the regulation-making powers of the three bodies responsible for plant varieties and seeds. That is very appropriate given the large volume of plant research undertaken in Scotland.
	Finally, we revisit our old friend Schedule 5, the list of powers reserved to Westminster. There is clarification that the Scottish Parliament can fund the non-postal services of the Post Office, or whatever name we shall be using for the Post Office after the implementation of the Postal Services Act. Given the pivotal nature of postal premises in all communities--urban, rural and remote--there are considerable opportunities for creativity in information, transport and for the reduction of non-domestic rates.
	Scottish Ministers will gain the power to require Scottish public authorities to produce joint transport strategies for rail and air services, both largely reserved matters. As it has been announced that my home town of Alloa is shortly to be reconnected into the passenger rail network, I can certainly see the advantage of a strategic approach to Scottish regional transport planning. To further this, the Scottish Parliament will be able to confer PTE-style functions on joint transport authorities; presumably the Lothians and Fife area is ripe for such a new strategic status.
	The mixed bag of measures in the order clarifies the devolution of pesticides and reserves the accreditation of product standards. This latter is an essential part of the control of the single British market and its interface with the EU.
	These three orders will place more work before Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. I instinctively approve of measures which have a positively devolutionary flavour.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter for me. My understanding is that strychnine for poisoning foxes is, at the moment, illegal. Is the Minister saying that the power to make it legal or illegal is now being transferred to the Scottish Minister?

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her excellent presentation of these orders. We see them as tidying-up measures and warmly welcome them.
	Can the Minister confirm that in future, whenever reserved powers are under consideration because of the evolving situation, they will be kept closely under review and, should any conflicts arise, that further tidying up measures will be brought forward to deal with them?

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making arrangements for the executive notes to be available to us. They have been very helpful and have certainly made it easier for us to understand these orders.
	The noble Baroness will perhaps be aware that I am not a great admirer of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which seems to be worming its way into many aspects of our legislation.
	I have one question and one observation. My question is this. At Article 4(3)(a) of the transfer of functions order, the phrase "preventing disorder" is used in defining the scope of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this is consistent with, and not in any way in addition to, the scope?
	As to my observation, your Lordships will be aware that there are serious concerns about the legality of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which is currently under investigation by the European Commission as being in breach not only of directives but of treaties. I merely observe that, in the event that it is ruled illegal, the process of unpicking it will now reach to Scotland as a result of that order. I trust that the Government are comfortable with that prospect.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to the questions of my noble friends. Notwithstanding my own quibbles, I noted the observation of the noble Baroness that these orders are,
	"uncontroversial adjustments at the margins".
	We on these Benches accept that assessment.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank noble Lords opposite for welcoming the distribution of the executive notes. If this practice is as helpful as I had hoped it would be--and, from the reactions of noble Lords, it seems that it is--we shall try to continue it and make sure that notes are available to noble Lords on the Front Benches; it is to be hoped that they will then make them available to Back-Benchers who have an interest in the subjects under discussion.
	I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for welcoming the orders. He asked me one or two specific questions. As to whether the renewables obligation will include biodiesel, the content of the renewables obligation is a matter for Scottish Ministers. It concerns electricity production and the issue of biodiesel may be less relevant. The noble Earl was good enough to say that his question about biodiesel was far outside the subject of renewables. The order is about renewables and does not include biodiesel, but, of course, if Scottish Ministers wish to consider it, they will no doubt do so.
	I was happy for the noble Earl--and, indeed, for the people of Alloa--to hear what sounds like good news about their future transport arrangements. In general, I am happy that he welcomed the three orders. Like him, I share a positive approach towards devolution. The whole point about devolution is that, wherever possible, power should go to the devolved structures. That is what subsidiarity, efficiency and so on are all about.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked about strychnine. This order will executively devolve the authorisation to purchase strychnine. If authorised, of course, it would not be illegal. However, as I hope I made clear, so far as it concerns foxes, strychnine is very much a question of rabies control. That is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the necessary means of control must be available to Scottish Ministers. That is why the ability to authorise the sale of strychnine for moles and foxes is being devolved to Scottish Ministers. I hope that that answers the point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, spoke about reserved powers. I am grateful to him for what he said about these orders. We all appreciate--no one more so than the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and one or two other noble Lords who are Members of this House and very much part of the process of the Scottish Parliament--that, as both Parliaments progress, we are very much in a learning process of how to deal most efficiently with adjusting the interface. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it seems to be going along remarkably well from both points of view.
	I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, accepted our assurance that these are amendments and adjustments which have proved necessary through experience as we go along the path of learning. As to his specific question of whether the orders are consistent with all the points he made, the answer is yes, they are completely consistent.
	I think and hope that I have dealt with all the points raised. I shall, of course, be happy to write to any noble Lord who feels that I have not. On the assumption that your Lordships are now content with the orders, I commend them to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Joint Claims: Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2000

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we also debate the second Motion standing in my name. I shall therefore speak to that second Motion during the course of this speech.
	Perhaps I may remind the House of the context of the jobseeker's allowance regulations. Provisions for joint claims for jobseeker's allowance are contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will apply to couples without dependent children where at least one member of the couple was born after 19th March 1976. Both members of the couple will be required to meet jobseeker's allowance conditions and to be available for and actively seeking work. Each will receive help to obtain work and will be directed to training programmes or New Deal assistance as appropriate.
	Joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will involve both partners directly in the labour market, preventing them adjusting to benefit dependency at an early age when they are in a position to find and take work. The House had an opportunity to debate these provisions during the passage of the Bill last year and that went through unopposed.
	Our aim is to ensure that joint claimants of jobseeker's allowance will be treated, as far as possible, in the same way as single claimants are treated currently. The changes introduced by the regulations will give joint claimants the same favourable rights as single claimants regarding the labour market conditions for receiving jobseeker's allowance. They provide that joint claimants are treated as available for and actively seeking employment for the short periods of temporary absence from Great Britain as described. If the regulations were not approved, we should penalise joint claimants. If approved, the regulations will come into force on 19th March 2001, when joint claims for jobseeker's allowance will be introduced.
	I turn now to the Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 2000. These relate to the New Deal 25 plus pilots. These pilots are part of our efforts to tackle long-term unemployment. They have been operating in 28 areas of Great Britain since November 1998, and are testing a variety of innovative ways of helping unemployed people into work. The majority are aimed at those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more; the rest are aimed at those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. The participants in these pilots face a variety of barriers to work, including lack of recent work experience, lack of relevant skills and lack of confidence. The pilots provide individually-tailored help which identifies and then addresses these barriers.
	I am pleased to be able to report that the pilots are proving to be a success. They have confirmed that the New Deal model of a "gateway", and a period of intensive full-time help works--over 16,000 people have already been helped into work. Independent research on the New Deal for young people has shown that, as a direct result of the programme, unemployment is lower and employment is higher. The research also suggests that the programme substantially pays for itself.
	The results from the pilot schemes are also encouraging. Independent research has found early pilot effects of higher movement into jobs and out of unemployment. This confirms our own analysis, which suggests that the proportion of people leaving for work is 50 per cent higher in the pilots targeted at people unemployed for 18 months or more than in the control areas outside the pilots.
	On the basis of this evidence, we have already announced that an enhanced scheme, New Deal 25 plus, will be introduced across the country in April 2001. The new programme is being designed to reflect the lessons from the pilots--we are retaining flexibility; ensuring that a range of help is always available; and investing more in advisers to enable them to provide continued effective support.
	The pilots continue to be a useful source of evidence about how such a programme should operate; we therefore want them to continue until the new programme is introduced. The regulations before the House renew the pilot powers which already exist and which, under the provisions of the Jobseekers Act, can only be in force for 12 months at a time. They enable the pilot schemes to continue to take people in until the end of March 2001, after which the new national programme will be introduced.
	The regulations prescribe the categories of people who will be required to participate in the New Deal pilots and the impact on their benefit of not participating, and they ensure that payments that they may receive as part of the pilot, including self-employed earnings, will not affect their benefit. The only substantive change is that the regulations now define the date on which the last participant will join. Technical changes reflect the introduction of joint claims, and the fact that some people will be entering the pilots for a second time.
	In summary, the pilots have proved successful. They have provided us with valuable evidence to inform the development of a new national programme aimed at helping long-term unemployed adults into work. The regulations ensure that the pilots can continue until the national programme is introduced.
	I hope that my explanation of the contents and import of the two sets of regulations has helped the House. They underpin important elements of the Government's ambitious and innovative welfare-to-work strategy. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I understand that this is the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has played a substantive role on the Front Bench. I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and give him all good wishes for his future on the Front Bench.
	We are entirely happy with the first set of regulations--with one exception; namely, footnote (e), where the reference to the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 is given as "S.I. 1998/207", which caused me considerable difficulty when attempting to call up the regulations on my computer!
	We are somewhat less happy with some aspects of the second set of regulations, relating to the New Deal pilot schemes. Last year, when the equivalent provisions were moved, which will expire on 28th November, my noble friend Lord Russell moved an amendment to the Motion for their approval. It called for an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government to include a study of the outcomes for those deprived of benefit under Regulation 6, which imposes deprivation of benefit on those who fail to complete their programmes under the pilots. My noble friend asked for the study to include information as to the means of support relied on by such people and the proportion of those who, six months later, were employed, unemployed, in hospital or in prison, and how those outcomes compared with those whose rights were not taken away from them under Regulation 6. In response, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who moved the equivalent regulations last year, said:
	"The evaluation strategy which we already have in place for the New Deal, including the pilot schemes, will enable us to explore what happens to those who have been subject to benefit sanctions, through both surveys and one-to-one interviews. I hope that that provides the noble Earl with some reassurance. The evaluation will be able to examine all the comparisons he suggests. If the noble Earl would find it useful, I should be happy to write to him giving further precise details of our evaluation plans".--[Official Report, 29/10/99; col. 546.]
	My noble friend accepted the offer to be supplied with this further information; and, indeed, some information was sent to him. However, that information was virtually useless and, he tells me, did not answer his questions.
	I refer the Minister to Hansard of 22nd May on the debate on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. That legislation raised a similar issue concerning those people who had been deprived of benefit for failing to comply with a community order. My noble friend explained why that information was useless as regards answering the questions that he had asked.
	This is vital information. In some cases, no doubt, a jobseeker's failure to participate in an employment programme will have been due to the fact that he was already employed in the black economy and was making a fraudulent claim for jobseeker's allowance. But in other cases the failure will be due to the fact that the jobseeker is an inadequate or badly-organised individual who cannot help himself or someone who drops out of the programme because of bullying, racism or stress. We need to know how many of these cases were fraudulent, how many were unfortunate and what the effect is on the latter. I hope that the Minister can assure us that more and better research will be carried out on the issue. We have not tabled an amendment to the Motion on this occasion but we are still looking for the answers.
	There are some other questions that need to be raised. The Minister said that the pilot schemes had proved to be a success, but we should like to know when we shall actually get a full statistical report on the impact of the schemes so that we can form our own views on whether or not they have been a success. In the first year of the pilot schemes there was an enormous underspend. I should like to know whether there has been an underspend for this year; and, if so, what it has been.
	There are other wider issues of concern relating to the New Deal programme which I should like to mention briefly. In particular, there is the question of how many under-25s go into full-time education and training and how many leave before completion of such courses. The figures for 1999 were horrifying. Can the Minister tell us whether the figures for 2000 are any better? I do not expect him to answer that question on his feet because I recognise that it is outside the direct impact of the regulations. However, we should very much welcome an indication of the actual figures in so far as they are provisional, and perhaps the Minister can tell us when we can expect to receive final figures. The figures for 1999 for the FTET programme were so horrifying as to raise a question whether this was a sensible use of public money or whether the whole of that programme should be scrapped. We are anxious to know whether the outcome in the year 2000 has been significantly better.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. I should like to welcome him to his new role. I hope that he enjoys it very much but not for too long on the Government Front Bench; just on the Front Bench of his party. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the clear way that he introduced these two regulations and for the fact that they were introduced together. That makes the process much simpler and, I believe, much quicker. In return, I should like to assure noble Lords that I shall be as brief as possible because these regulations were examined in much detail in Standing Committee in the other place. I know that many probing questions were put by my honourable friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West.
	The New Deal pilot regulations are of greater substance. Therefore, despite the fact that the Minister dealt with them the other way round, I should prefer to deal first with them. The concept of changing the old unemployment allowance--the dole--to the higher-sounding "jobseeker's allowance" is paved with very good intentions. However, what it really did, apart from changing the name, was to introduce more stringent conditions on the claimant for unemployment pay. In some parts of America they have what they call workfare--in other words, "Take such and such a job or you'll lose your benefit". We certainly agree with the objective of the introduction of stricter qualifications for the receipt of unemployment pay, to use a neutral term. That is why, when in government, we introduced the Jobseekers Act 1995, against, as I am sure the Minister will not mind me saying, opposition from the Labour Party at that time.
	The Act under which the Government are now making the present regulations is that very Act. The qualifications are essentially that the claimant should be actively undergoing training or seeking work and should be available to do it if suitable work can be found. Indeed, that has always been the case, but what the jobseeker's regulations seek to do is to create a more specific definition of actively seeking work.
	On 2nd July 1997, exactly two months into the present Government, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said:
	"Staying at home and doing nothing is not an option".
	On 5th January 1998, six months on, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
	"From today there will be no option of simply staying at home on full benefit doing nothing".
	But how much progress has there been in achieving these fine aims?
	The Minister with the title that contains a full job description, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, told the committee in the other place that 16,000 people have been helped back to work. I believe that to be exactly the same number as the Minister gave us today. He also said that it had increased employment and decreased unemployment among young people. But what is the cost? By April, which is the last date for which I have figures, 60,000 people had been through the over-25-year-old pilots. The Minister in the other place claimed that 16,000 had found jobs lasting more than 13 weeks.
	However, according to this month's Labour Trends, 69 per cent of those people would have found jobs anyway or were substitutions for existing workers for whom there was no state subsidy paid to employers. Therefore, on the basis of the Minister's claim of 16,000 going into employment via the New Deal, that is to say that 11,000 would have found jobs in any event. Deducting these from the figure of 16,000, we find, on the basis of the authoritative survey that I have just quoted, that only 4,960 new jobs were created. Of course, that is not a figure to be sneezed at.
	The Minster said that the cost involved was £64 million. On the basis of 4,960 jobs, each job would have cost £12,900. The Government may well argue that this is a price well worth paying both in terms of the welfare of the extra people who have found work and the benefit to the Treasury in terms of less benefits paid out and in many cases income tax and national insurance contributions received. But the jobseeker's allowance does not create jobs. What it can do is to create incentives or impose sanctions to ensure that claimants take up any jobs that are out there waiting to be filled. It is here that I believe the Government have failed to live up to the lofty aspirations set out in the two ministerial pronouncements that I quoted earlier.
	Indeed, there was a third pronouncement by the Secretary of State only last June, when he said:
	"We are determined that under the New Deal, there is no 5th option".
	In a written reply to my honourable friend on 6th November, the Minister told him that, of the 60,000 people who had joined the over-25 pilots, 2,222 had been subjected to sanctions--that is, 3.7 per cent. The vast majority, 1,750, had been sanctioned for failure to attend. It is reasonable to surmise that a high proportion of those were people who may have already been in employment but who were nevertheless claiming benefit and had been trapped by the scheme. That is a useful spin-off but it does nothing to increase the potential of the scheme to get more people into work. The question is: why have sanctions not been extended nationally? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when they will be and, now that we have had the benefit of the experience of the pilot schemes, what the reason is for the hold-up.
	I mention another problem. In the course of the debate in committee in the other place my honourable friend asked what sanctions applied to someone who was removed from a scheme through misconduct. The Minister was unable to answer at first until she received in the course of speaking what she later described as "clarification" from her officials. I am sure that she used the word "clarification" with a sense of irony. According to her, the answer is to be found by the use of the word "and" at the end of regulation 10(1)(a).
	I take a few moments to read a shortened version of that regulation:
	"An income-based jobseeker's allowance ... shall be payable to a person ... even though section 19 of the Act prevents payment ... to him if--
	(a) an allowance would not otherwise be payable because the circumstances in section 19(5)(c) of the Act apply".
	That section deals with wilful default. I resume my quotation with the Minister's magic word "and". The regulation further states:
	"and he has already participated in that same intensive activity period ... for ... 13 weeks".
	What does all that mean? A claimant can be sanctioned for misconduct unless he has already gone through the same option. In other words, as I understand it, if he has taken a job for 13 weeks, he cannot then be sanctioned if he leaves that job or is dismissed for misconduct and declines to take another. I very much hope that I am wrong, but perhaps the Minister will obtain clarification on that.
	As the noble Lord has had a longer time than his colleague to be briefed, will he please tell us in simple terms whether a person who declines to co-operate with the scheme can be protected from any sanctions to any extent in face of the clear and unambiguous wording of Section 19(5) of the Act which states that he shall be sanctioned by the loss of benefit? Can a claimant continue to receive benefit even though his unemployment is due to continuous misconduct? A simple yes or no answer would be sufficient if the Minister is able to obtain one from his officials. If the answer is yes, why are the Government turning the intention of the Act on its head by these regulations?
	I must return to the figure of 60,000 persons claimed by the Government to have participated in this programme. It is acknowledged by the department that some people have participated in more than one option of the scheme, for example, they have gone on a training scheme and then have taken a job. Will the Minister confirm that there is no element of double counting here--I should be grateful to hear that--and that the Government are talking about 60,000 different people and are not including x thousands who have gone through a kind of revolving door?
	The only substantive change introduced by the two regulations we are discussing is the new regulation dealing with joint claims. The Minister told the committee in the other place that this would affect only a small proportion of partners and is technical in nature. I believe that the noble Lord said more or less the same thing. I certainly accept therefore that that is the case.
	The new pilot regulations are by way of a continuation of the existing scheme and are, we trust, a preparation for the extension of the scheme nationwide. We on this side of the House will keep the effect of those regulations under continuing scrutiny. We trust that the Government, without any prompting from us, will also keep them under review to ensure that they are genuinely effective in getting people to work, as distinct from providing the Government with another spinning platform.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have a simple question for the Minister. He used the words "Great Britain". I wonder whether that was a slip of the tongue and he meant to say the United Kingdom, or does this legislation not apply in Northern Ireland?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for their kind comments. I am sure that I shall enjoy my new role for as long as I have it. I am aware of the fact that many people have some influence over that, not least the electorate in the not too distant future, although we in this House are not, of course, directly elected. I appreciate the sentiments that have been expressed. I shall certainly enjoy debating these issues with the noble Lords who have spoken today.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am not directly responsible for the website or the computer that malfunctioned in terms of sending information to him. I regret that that occurred. I shall ensure that the department is aware of the fact that he was unable to obtain the information to which he was thoroughly entitled. I hope that we shall do better in that regard in the near future.
	The noble Lord referred to evaluation of the schemes. They are, of course, pilot schemes and therefore detailed statistical analysis must obviously be limited. However, we published a report on 9th October. I understand from the noble Lord's remarks that that information was not as full as he would have wished. I think that he will, however, recognise that the evaluation of pilot studies is bound to be more limited than in the case of a full ongoing programme. I hope that the noble Lord has been able to discern from more recent statements that there is justification for the Government's view that the schemes have been successful.
	The noble Lord is right to surmise that there is some underspend with regard to the programme. That amounts to £13 million. I notice that a former Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. Therefore I am mindful of the fact that it is important to be as accurate as possible with regard to the department's figures. However, the underspend in this area may be due to falling unemployment and the fact that fewer people are therefore eligible to attend the programme. It may be considered that in those circumstances the underspend is understandable and justified.
	The noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State had emphasised that there should be no fifth option. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that people have responsibilities as well as rights and that people who are well and able to work should avail themselves of the opportunities under the programme to prepare themselves more effectively for work.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to a particular category of people on the scheme who present real difficulty with regard to their consistent availability for work. I think that we all share those sentiments. As regards the long-term unemployed, many factors are involved, some of which need to be remedied in terms of improving their competence. However, some of them may relate to more obvious difficulties such as health and preparation, to which we should pay proper regard. I appreciated the noble Lord's comments on that point. I assure him that in evaluating the success of the schemes and the question of when sanctions should be invoked Ministers will ensure that schemes are designed to be fully sympathetic to difficulties which some people may experience. In those circumstances sanctions would be inappropriate and would not be applied.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested that the figure of 16,000 beneficiaries of the scheme that I mentioned could be computed rather differently by estimating a percentage of people who might have found work anyway. That is a hypothetical judgment. Thanks to the more general success of the Government's economic policies, unemployment has fallen so far that our record is the envy of many other countries. However, the noble Baroness's computations led her to an extraordinarily precise figure of 4,960 people who would not otherwise have found work. That is a little on the low side. I recognise that our interpretation is bound to be open to dispute, but we can state categorically that 16,000 people are in work because of the effective operation of the system.
	The noble Baroness and I are united on the general principles behind the order: that staying at home and making no attempt to make oneself available for work is necessarily to be deplored. Precise and effective government action was required to remedy that.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to a slip of the tongue on my part. When I referred only to Great Britain, I was talking about the 28 pilots. There is a similar programme for Northern Ireland. The joint claims regulations are specifically for Great Britain. I am sure that the noble Earl knows that the New Deal scheme has a counterpart in Northern Ireland.
	I listened carefully to the noble Baroness' comments on the interpretation of the details. I cannot pretend that I came to my new role with an enormous enlightenment on the details of the regulations. I struggled likewise to interpret them accurately and effectively. At least we have that in common. I assure her that sanctions are introduced when an individual has failed to comply with the requirements of the programme. She said that wilful misconduct would render an individual unacceptable to their employer, but that would bring the individual back into the scheme either for an effective presentation for the next position or for a sanction because the terms of the arrangement had been broken. We make no apology for that. We have emphasised all along that the right to benefit must be balanced against the obligation to be available for work and to conduct oneself appropriately when one has a job. I hasten to add that the counterpart to that is that anyone who enters work under the scheme also enjoys all the rights and protections that we expect all employees to have in relation to the conduct of their employer.
	I hope that I have answered all the detailed points that have been raised. I apologise if I have failed in any respect, and I assure your Lordships that I shall reply in detail in writing as soon as possible. On the basis of the debate, I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 2000

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name of the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England) (No. 2) Scheme

Lord Carter: rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman, I beg to move that the Farm Waste Grant (NVZs) (England)(No. 2) Scheme 2000 be approved.
	I have a strong sense of deja vu in opening a debate on nitrate vulnerable zones. Ten years ago I served on Sub-Committee D, of the European Union Committee, which produced a report on nitrates in water. That report remains the best and most authoritative analysis of the subject.
	The Government's long-standing and ongoing commitment to farmers was demonstrated in our strategy for agriculture, Action Plan for Farming, announced on 30th March, in which we recognised that the grant rate under MAFF's farm waste grant scheme should be increased.
	The current grant rate of 25 per cent is available to those farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones--which I shall hereafter refer to as NVZs--who are required to extend or improve their manure handling and storage facilities as a result of the mandatory NVZ action programme. Those measures, designed to reduce nitrate leaching from agricultural land, came into force on 19th December 1998 in the 68 NVZs designated in England and Wales in 1996 under the EU nitrate directive.
	Under that directive, farmers are restricted as to the type of, amount and frequency at which manure can be applied to land. That can cause difficulties for farmers who have little or no storage capacity and therefore have to install new facilities.
	In recognition of that mandatory capital investment, the scheme focuses assistance on a range of storage facilities for slurry and other manure. Fixed handling and disposal facilities, which form an essential part of farm waste systems, are also eligible for the grant.
	Since its introduction in 1996, the take-up of the farm waste grant has been slow. Of the money available for 1996-2000, only £317,000 has been drawn down. That is an average annual spend profile of only 10 per cent. It is likely that the relatively modest grant level of 25 per cent, coupled with the adverse economic climate for farming, has resulted in farmers attempting to make do with their existing facilities and in some cases exporting their surplus farm waste to other holdings.
	The proposed expansion of NVZs early next year will make it more difficult for farmers to continue with that method of exporting as the number of farmers subject to the NVZ restrictions increases. Those increases in the area of NVZ boundaries, and thus their eventual size, are still being defined, but it is anticipated that demand will increase dramatically for the grant as restrictions are enforced.
	To assist with that forthcoming capital expenditure, the Government have raised the grant available to 40 per cent on eligible expenditure, up to an investment ceiling of £85,000. That is the maximum contribution permitted under EU state aid rules. The Treasury has given approval for the state aid notification, as notified to the Commission on 18th May 2000. As this is a demand-led grant scheme, it is not possible to ascertain accurately the total value of annual claims. However, through estimate profiles £4.5 million has been profiled for each of the next three years, beginning in 2001-02.
	The Farm Waste Grant Scheme currently operates in both England and Wales. Following devolution, separate instruments are required in England and Wales, and the new increased grant rate at 40 per cent will be available only in England. The possibility of introducing a similar increase in Wales is under active consideration by the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department.
	This scheme represents real assistance for farmers in NVZs and demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agriculture industry with the need to protect other water sources from pollution. I commend the scheme.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Government have increased the level of grant available for farmers from 25 to 40 per cent. However, I should like to ask the Minister about some of the difficulties that farmers are still likely to encounter and whether he feels that the designation of the new NVZs will increase the problem for farmers who currently are unable to afford to enter the scheme.
	The new NVZs will of course bring a new tranche of farmers into that geographical area. However, the geographical spread of NVZs will also mean that that option will not be available to farmers who until now have felt unable to invest in the facilities to deal with their waste and have relied on exporting their waste to an area that is not in an NVZ. The weather has also had a bearing on the issue. Flooding and water-logging in many areas--often the same areas that are vulnerable--has meant that farmers have not been able to carry out their normal methods of spreading waste on the land. Therefore, they have been doubly hit.
	I gather that the Government are currently undertaking a study into the costs to farmers which have arisen in NVZ areas due to the new areas of designation. I wonder whether the £4.5 million which the Minister said has been set aside is a final figure. If it is, what will happen to the results of the government study? It is quite clear that the costs to farmers of entering the scheme are not small. Although it is difficult to come forward with an average cost, the NFU has suggested that a farmer might well expect to spend between £40,000 and £60,000. That is the NFU's best guess. If farmers must find 60 per cent of that then, frankly, in the current climate it is not surprising that the take-up is as low as 10 per cent. In these past years it will have been difficult to find that amount of capital expenditure.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether MAFF is ensuring that environmental measures are being taken by farmers which may lead to a different way of dealing with this problem rather than expending money on waste facilities? Might those measures also be subject to increased expenditure?Finally, perhaps I may ask what will happen if the £4.5 million which is made available each year is not taken up. The money is intended to deal with problems caused by nitrates. However, if it becomes clear that farmers do not wish to use the grant in that way, what is the possibility of the money being vired over into the over-subscribed Country Stewardship Scheme and Arable Stewardship Scheme, which often deal with the same problem but in a different way that also benefits biodiversity?

Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for showing me a copy of his speech concerning this scheme. We on these Benches are grateful that in this case the Government have listened and acted to help our hard-pressed farmers. I am sure that he is right to point to the inadequacy of the previous 25 per cent grant and the fact that very few farmers have taken it up. I am also glad that the Government intend to spread the scheme to Welsh farmers through the Welsh Assembly. I hope that there will no undue delay in implementing that.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for taking part in this debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having provided her with a copy of my speech. I was unable to discover who among the Liberal Democrats was intending to respond to the order.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that, as I am known as agriculture spokesman, that should not prove a problem in the future.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I stand duly and properly corrected and I apologise. The noble Baroness asked me a number of questions. Of course, one must remember that the grant aid is being increased to take account as far as possible of the difficulties faced by farmers who are not able to export. It is true that they will have to find 60 per cent of the average cost of between £40,000 and £60,000. As the noble Baroness knows, the grant aid is eligible up to a limit of £85,000.
	The take-up of 10 per cent relates to the 25 per cent grant. Therefore, we expect that the increase in the grant aid and the legal requirement on farmers to deal with the waste problem will result in a further take-up. One can see that there has been a substantial increase in the amount allocated; that is, £4.5 million a year compared with £317,000 in total which was taken up in the years 1996 to 2000. I am not sure of the answer to the noble Baroness's ingenious question about viring over money to the Country Stewardship Scheme. Perhaps I may write to her on that point.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his acceptance of the order. I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation on the Free Movement of Persons) Order 2000

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this order enables the United Kingdom to press ahead with ratification of an agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of people. The agreement is one of seven bilateral agreements between the EU member states and Switzerland which are the culmination of several years of careful negotiation.
	The agreements will lead to an approximation between Switzerland and the member states of the EU which will be of benefit to us all. The individual agreements are concerned with air transport, land transport, trade in agricultural products, elimination of technical barriers to trade, public procurement, research in science and technology, and free movement of people.
	It is the latter agreement which concerns us today. This agreement is the only one of the seven agreements which requires individual ratification by each member state. The ratification process is necessary because the agreement combines Community and national competence.
	The free movement of persons agreement was laid before Parliament as a treaty earlier this month. The draft Order in Council is the next significant step in the process. The order provides for the implementation of the agreement by specifying it as a Community treaty under the European Communities Act 1972.
	The United Kingdom hopes to show its commitment to those agreements by early ratification. All seven agreements will come into force simultaneously once ratification of the free movement of persons agreement has been completed in all member states. So far as we know, only Austria and Switzerland are ahead of the United Kingdom in completing their ratification procedures.
	Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association--EFTA. It is not a member of the European Economic Area. Switzerland voted against joining the EEA in 1992. Instead, the Swiss have chosen to negotiate a series of bilateral agreements with the EU, including the free movements of persons agreement. That agreement was approved by the Swiss in a referendum earlier in the year.
	The free movement of persons agreement will enable nationals of all contracting party countries to benefit from equal rights in relation to free movement in all the other contracting party countries. It extends the benefits of the single market to Switzerland and allows EU member states to benefit from the contribution which Switzerland can make to the single market.
	Once the agreement is in force, nationals of contracting party countries and members of their families, regardless of their nationality, will have a right in the territory of all contracting party countries to enter, reside, work, provide services and set up as self-employed persons.
	Nationals of each contracting party country will have equal living, employment and working conditions in all the countries concerned. For Swiss nationals, that will enable them to exercise the free movement rights accorded by the agreement in the United Kingdom. That includes the use of the EEA/EU channel at UK immigration controls.
	We are pleased to be taking forward the ratification of this agreement. It will build on the excellent existing bilateral relationship between Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Switzerland is the UK's largest export market and our third largest market outside the EU. Switzerland invests more money in the United Kingdom than any other EU country. Swiss companies employ some 100,000 people in the UK. President Ogi has visited the UK twice this year, furthering these good relations and the Prince of Wales paid a successful official visit to Switzerland earlier this month.
	We are keen to ratify the free movement of persons agreement as soon as possible in order to help maintain good relations with our EU partners and Switzerland. I am grateful to the House for its early consideration of this order. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Video recording of interviews) Order 2000

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Terrorism Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 20th July 2000, makes provision for police interviews to be video recorded with sound and for the video recording arrangements to be governed by a code of practice.
	Your Lordships will be aware that at present interviews with persons held under counter-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland are subject to two distinct forms of electronic recording. Silent video recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects became mandatory on 10th March 1998; the police had been operating the system administratively since 12th January 1998. The operation of the video recording system is regulated by a code of practice. In addition, an audio recording system was introduced on the authority of the Chief Constable from 10th January 1999 and became operable formally from 24th May 1999. This system is also regulated by a code of practice.
	The introduction of these additional safeguards has seen a significant reduction in the number of complaints of ill-treatment at the holding centres and has provided impartial and accurate records of interviews which may be relied upon in subsequent criminal proceedings. These have been welcome developments.
	However, the Government believe that the effectiveness of the existing systems as safeguards could be further enhanced in a way that is fully consistent with our human rights obligations and provides additional protection for both interviewees and police interviewing officers against claims of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment. Therefore video recording with sound will be introduced in Northern Ireland when the Terrorism Act comes into force on 19th February 2001. Separate audio recording will continue.
	As your Lordships will know from previous debates on the subject, the Government's aim is to ensure that the treatment of persons charged with terrorist crime in police custody is fair, professional, transparent and accountable. The new video recording system will also assist the judicial process by providing an additional record of interviews, in the event that a criminal case ensues or there is a complaint of ill-treatment.
	For many years the independent commissioners for the holding centres argued the case for video recording with sound. The Government are grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr Bill Norris for their work and their thorough reports; and we are pleased now to be acting to put in place measures which they have long advocated. I am happy to say that the Chief Constable of the RUC fully supports and welcomes this move. This is a major step forward.
	A significant range of statutory and administrative safeguards aimed at protecting persons in police custody are already in place; the introduction of sound and vision video recording will add to the safeguards and demonstrates that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the protection of the rights of those held in police custody.
	Other safeguards are these: audio recording of interviews; regular visits and examinations by a qualified medical practitioner; the maintenance of detailed custody records; the right to a continuous period of eight hours in any 24 hours free from questioning, travel or any interruptions; breaks for all normal mealtimes; a requirement for continued detention of suspects to be reviewed every 12 hours; the right to legal advice; and the right not to be held incommunicado.
	The draft order requires interviews of persons detained under Schedule 7 (port and border controls) or Section 41 (arrest without warrant of a person reasonably suspected of being a terrorist) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which are conducted by a police constable at a police station in Northern Ireland to be video recorded with sound and that the video recording is to be conducted in accordance with a code of practice. The Act provides that the order must be debated first because the power to require sound and vision video recording is optional: an option which we are now exercising. Today, we are concerned with whether sound and vision video is right in principle. If noble Lords pass this order today, the code will be considered through the affirmative resolution procedure at a later stage.
	Your Lordships will no doubt want me to say a few words about the code, copies of which are available today for those who wish to read the detail. A code of practice will be made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act. Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft code and invite public representation. The publication of the draft code was announced on Monday 6th November. The draft code sets out a range of requirements which must apply when interviews with terrorist suspects are video recorded; it also gives guidance for police officers and others on the application and interpretation of the code. The closing date for comments on the code is 29th December and it will then be laid in both Houses after comments have been considered and any appropriate modifications made.
	The Government are taking this step today to bring the new system and draft code of practice into operation on 19th February 2001. The Government take the view that the many benefits of video recording with sound make this a very worthwhile step. I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation of the reasons for the order and how it will be operated. These provisions are a welcome addition to the repertoire of the system of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness said, they will do much to eliminate rumour and suspicion about any undue harassment of detainees and help to ensure that due process is observed by interviewing officers.
	However, I have a major concern. How secure will those tapes be? It is vital that they be kept under maximum security and destroyed when no longer needed. I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure me on that important question.

Lord Luke: My Lords, we, too, welcome this extension of recording what is said at interviews. Perhaps I may raise one small point. Did I understand the Minister to say that, although the new video equipment will be installed and available for interviews, audio equipment will still be used at the same interview? It seems somewhat over the top to have two recordings at the same time.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. My understanding is that it is better to use the audio tape in order to provide a written transcript of the interview than to use the video tape. The noble Lord looks puzzled and I can understand his puzzlement. Should there be any further reason for the use of the audio tape, I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
	Audio recording is primarily of evidential value, while video recording is meant as a safeguard for the detainee and for the police. Of course, the video could be considered in criminal proceedings if needed, but only if needed, whereas the audio recording would be part of the evidence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked me about the security of the tapes, which is obviously an extremely important point in the circumstances.
	Tapes will be held securely in the same way as other evidence and material which may be used for evidential purposes. If access to a tape is required, the written authority of an officer not below the rank of assistant chief constable must be obtained before that security can be broken.
	The draft code of practice, copies of which are available from the Printed Paper Office, provide for the accessing of tapes, security arrangements and a number of other administrative arrangements to ensure the secrecy and integrity of the sound and vision recording system.
	There will be opportunities for discussion when the draft code is debated. But I am happy to provide the noble Lord with the assurance he sought. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hedges

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following their consultation on High hedges: possible solutions.
	My Lords, we are nearly at the end of the parliamentary Session and it is therefore appropriate to mark the point we have reached in the resolution of the difficulties caused to so many people by high hedges.
	I tabled a Private Member's Bill, the Statutory Nuisances (Hedges in Residential Areas) Bill, at the very beginning of this parliamentary Session and, within days, I had a pleasant surprise--the DETR published its consultation paper entitled High Hedges: Possible Solutions. The closing date for consultation was 31st January 2000. My Bill had its First Reading on 1lth January this year so that seemed to be good timing.
	It took an inordinately long time to count the number of replies. Only months later were the Government able to tell me that over 3,000 replies had been received. The DETR states,
	"to put this in context, our consultations usually generate hundreds rather than thousands of replies".
	It was a massive public response from individuals and local authorities.
	It was hard to wait for an analysis of those responses and all efforts to get an answer before the Summer Recess failed. On 10th August, the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, appeared on television and was widely reported in the press, announcing that 94 per cent of replies supported new laws to control these hedges. He declared that the Government would legislate on that matter. The DETR press release of that date stated that,
	"it has been shown there is overwhelming support for tougher controls. And so we have decided to introduce legislation in England to allow authorities to determine complaints about nuisance garden hedges. The authority would decide whether to require the hedge owner to remedy the problem by, for example, cutting back the hedge".
	Press reports were favourable but somewhat sceptical. Perhaps I may quote from a feature article in The Times on 11th August which stated that,
	"it is encouraging that Mr Meacher has accepted the logic of this approach. Much less encouraging is his failure to will the means. Now that sensible proposals are in place, swift action is needed. Yet he has promised legislation only when parliamentary time allows and admitted that it might be left to a Private Member's Bill. It could be many years before nuisance hedges get the chop"
	On 14th September, I had a meeting in his office with Michael Meacher and I am grateful to him for making the time available to discuss the issue in considerable detail. I was impressed by his genuine interest in the subject and his stated intention of seeing that there is appropriate legislation. The only question which remained unanswered was: when? It is almost harder for people to have the need for a solution acknowledged without seeing the positive progress towards that solution.
	That is why I wanted to bring this matter again before your Lordships. We cannot allow high hedges to be forgotten. Since our last discussion of this matter in July, I have received many more letters from those suffering nuisance hedges and each one makes me sympathise more with their plight. The famous case of Michael Jones took 20 years and close to £100,000 to resolve. As the founder of Hedgeline, Michael Jones has done much to help others suffering similar problems.
	I have just received a letter from Alan Boulter of Solihull, who won the case brought against his neighbour. Her costs were £11,000 and she was ordered to pay 75 per cent of his costs. All those costs, totalling over £20,000, are being met by the taxpayer, as she was legally aided. That is a poor use of public money and a simple and inexpensive system operated by the local authority would be so much better. Local authorities are accustomed to dealing with planning applications and are regularly assessing the impact of their decisions on different parties. They will be the ideal bodies to deal with the hedge issue.
	Some letters tell me that the hedges have been planted with the deliberate intention of reducing the value of the house they border, by causing invasive root damage and loss of light and visual amenity. Some people have lost everything in these cases. In other cases, there has been no evil intent, simply a thoughtlessness or lack of awareness of the impact of trees growing, usually but not always, quickly to great size. Often the planter has long since moved and the trees are just evidence of the lack of any attempt to control them or are too much for the new owner to cope with. While everyone knows leylandii as a menace, they are not the only plantings causing the problem of high hedges. A tree, or row of trees, which might be beautiful in one planting position can be a menace in another.
	As your Lordships and indeed the general public are already familiar with the problem, I shall not delay the House on a Friday by going into great detail. I have before me a letter dated 15th November, sent by Chris Mullin to Robert Jackson MP, who had written to him about an Abingdon constituent. A six-page DETR briefing note was attached and I should like to comment on that. Indeed, I wonder why I have never seen a copy of it.
	Under the heading "Frequently Asked Questions" is one question:
	"Why are you not acting more quickly?"
	The reply was that,
	"it will not help anyone if we rush into legislation that proves unworkable and so does not meet people's reasonable expectations".
	How could he even imagine he was rushing into anything when the House of Commons Research Paper 99/35 dated 25th March 1999 states:
	"The Government has been saying for more than a year that it was considering whether to intervene and if so, in what way".
	It is now 18 months since that report and they are still considering. I do not think that anyone has been doing too much rushing.
	Another question asks why the Government do not support my Bill, a ready-made vehicle on nuisance hedges. The reason given is that it is not a public health issue, and I take issue with the Minister on that. It is acknowledged in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that noise is a public health issue. In what way is it a public health issue? What effect does noise have? I believe that the answer is that it causes stress, which taken to an extreme could severely damage mental health. I do not believe that noise has a physical effect, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his place today and he may be able to comment on that. I do not include sudden blast noise or gunshot, which can physically damage eardrums. I refer to anti-social noise of the type covered by the Environmental Protection Act.
	The effect of noise above a certain level is to cause stress. My argument is that stress can result from the problem of high hedges, which can cause serious physical illness. I have received letters informing me of sad cases of severe heart problems, asthma and breathing problems all caused by the problem of high hedges. However, the most common damage is due to stress or stress-related illness.
	Another question in the brief refers to the cost to local authorities. The answer is vague. I feel strongly that central government support for this system is not desirable. The answer to the question seems to imply that it might be covered in the rate support grant, or whatever is the current terminology equivalent. I do not find that satisfactory. Local authorities should have the right to charge directly for services in this matter, just as they do in planning matters.
	My Bill has continued through some of its stages. Your Lordships have given support from all sides of the House, for which I record my thanks. Time has run out for my Bill, but the issue remains of great importance. I urge the Government to legislate in the Session of Parliament beginning on 6th December. People who are hedge victims want action before any more damage is done to their property and their lives.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although my name does not appear on the List of Speakers, I rise to make a brief intervention in the gap. My noble friend, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has always been keen for action to be taken on the problem of high hedges. She states that she has support from all sides of the House, and I am sure she has. However, I should like the Government to know that not everyone is of that view.
	It would be a great pity to have more government legislation on matters appertaining to individuals' private homes and livelihoods. We already have hedgerow officers, who tell us what hedges we may or may not remove. We have tree preservation orders. We are told that we must not wear the skin of a mink on our backs although we can wear the skin of a sheep. We are told that we must not dig up primroses and we are to be told that Jack Russells must not chase rabbits. If we are now to have orders stating what height of hedge we may have, I believe that is going too far. My noble friend has shown many examples, and I know feels strongly about this matter, I wanted the Government to know that not everyone follows her in that respect.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches, we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for so vigorously pursuing her campaign. We also thank Hedgeline which campaigns and supports the victims--I believe they are victims--of stress and nuisance.
	We believe that the delay has been long enough. I shall not rehearse the points ably made by my noble friend Lady Thomas when this issue was last debated in the House. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is correct that an extremely high hedge, very often at the edge of a small garden, or sometimes not even a garden, abutting somebody's window, is indeed a nuisance.
	In some ways it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because it is so easy to disagree with him. Any nuisance, be it an extremely loud noise or a smell which is impossible to live with, should be rightly dealt with so that people can live their lives according to the standards we all expect. I am sure that none of us would wish to take a frivolous view of the sort of stress described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
	In preparation for this short debate I looked at Hedgeline's website. I have been aware of similar examples both in my own neighbourhood and in the press. However, reading through the website, I found an horrendous catalogue of real distress. Some people have had to spend their entire savings, and others without savings have had to bankrupt themselves, to try to deal with the problem.
	We must support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner in asking her questions. What plans do the Government have to introduce their own legislation? I do not expect the Minister to announce what will be in the Queen's Speech. However, she might be able to tell us whether the Government are minded to deal with the matter themselves or whether she feels that a Private Member's Bill--suitably amended if the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is not correct--would be appropriate.
	Two local government Bills have passed through this House. Local authorities already have the mechanisms to deal with nuisance. If we had included what is, in effect, a small additional power, the matter could have been dealt with much more quickly. After all, we inserted into the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill a large section on AONBs. However, I understand that the time to include a provision in the local government Bills has passed. Another Session must not pass without this extremely serious matter being regarded worthy of parliamentary time.

Lord Luke: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is to be congratulated on initiating this debate. Her persistence and drive in this matter deserve the greatest possible success. It is a strange fact that in spite of the mediation and the best efforts of all concerned, so many of these cases result in acrimonious non-agreement.
	I have a large leylandii hedge which separates portions of my garden. It needs frequent attention but does its shielding work perfectly, so I readily appreciate this problem. My noble friend Lord Ferrers brought a different aspect to this debate, on the basis that we have too many regulations. I sympathise with him on that point. However, as long as legislation provides for the possibility of action only in the last resort by local authorities for specific cases, we should support it.
	It has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government seem to be dragging their feet on this matter. We have had the consultations and the results are plain. The Government have stated that they will bring forward legislation. As my noble friend, Lady Gardner stated, at the press conference given by Mr Meacher, he was extremely encouraging. I am glad to hear that she had a meeting with him. However, nothing has happened.
	I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we cannot expect the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, to say whether such legislation might conceivably be in the Queen's Speech. If she does not do that, I hope that she will give us some idea of the time-frame within which the Government hope to be able to introduce provisions which will do the trick.
	I hope that if such legislation is introduced, it will be limited to local authority involvement and, as I said before, that that would be as a last resort. There is not much more I can add to what has been extremely well put by my noble friend for the second or even the third time. There was a Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr Andrew Rowe in another place, which did not succeed. That shows that there is certainly concern throughout the Palace of Westminster about these problems.
	It took the Government two years to issue the consultation document in the first place. The results of that consultation were published earlier this year. In August we were encouraged to hope that something was coming. I hope that the Minister will give us some strong indications that action will now be taken.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for once more stimulating debate on the problems caused by high garden hedges. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton--who I know wanted to be present for this short debate but had a previous engagement elsewhere--have both been persistent in making sure not only that the Government do not lose sight of this issue, but also that the House is kept informed of the latest developments.
	From all that has been said prior to today and today, it is clear that noble Lords are aware of the problems. Neighbourhood quarrels about overgrown garden hedges hit the headlines with unrelenting regularity. What we see in the newspapers and on our television screens are often the more extreme cases where the suffering is severe.
	Perhaps I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that someone with a large garden of their own next door to a neighbour with a large garden, who has a hedge a long distance from the living area, is in a very different situation from an elderly couple living perhaps in a bungalow which receives little daylight who, even in midsummer, have to keep the electric lights burning at all times and where efforts at reasonable resolution of the problem have failed. I understand that he does not want hedge inspectors visiting his garden in order to advise him on what he ought to be doing.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, or anyone else.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Earl were in the position of the couple in the hypothetical case I just gave, he might welcome even me visiting him to help him resolve the problem.
	The lives of thousands of people are being made a misery by these problems. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that Hedgeline has done much to highlight the problems. The Government take the problems seriously at the highest level. That is why we published a consultation paper in England and Wales seeking views on possible solutions.
	The options considered, as the noble Baroness knows, included voluntary and statutory action. The response was overwhelming. We received over 3,000 replies. To put that into context: the department's consultations usually generate hundreds rather than thousands of replies. As might be expected, there was a lot of public interest in the matter; 91 per cent of the responses came from members of the public. Local authorities took the time and the opportunity to consult widely in their own localities before responding, and there were striking similarities between the views expressed by local councils and the public.
	The vast majority of respondents believed that new laws were the answer to nuisance garden hedge problems. That included 95 per cent of the individual members of the public and 77 per cent of local authorities. As to what form those laws should take, a new complaints system run by local authorities was the clear favourite. That was option four in the consultation paper and was supported by 73 per cent of the public and 67 per cent of local authorities. However, local authorities were more likely to want other measures, such as mediation, to be introduced not instead of, but alongside that legislation.
	The consultation showed that there is support for a tougher line to be taken on controls. We take neighbourhood problems seriously so we announced, in the summer, that we would prepare legislation to give local authorities in England powers to determine complaints about problem garden hedges. The National Assembly for Wales also decided that the new legislation should apply to Wales. We are keen to get the legislation in place quickly, but wanted to flesh out and ensure that the new rules would and could be enforced.
	Today we are asked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, to give a commitment that the Bill will be included in the Government's legislative programme for the next Session. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, recognised that I cannot anticipate what might or might not be included in the Queen's Speech next month. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that people are looking for legislation and a resolution of their problems sooner rather than later, and we will do our best to meet that need.
	The question was raised as to why we could not use existing legislation. But that legislation is based on Victorian laws. We believe that we need an up-to-date solution to the problem of modern living, not least because of the importance in this case of mediation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also raised, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, why her own Bill could not be used. The proposal in that Bill would add boundary hedges to the statutory nuisances in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act. We considered that possibility but do not believe it is appropriate to use that legislation in order to resolve this problem in the most effective way.
	As ever, we have had an informative debate about problem high hedges. I am grateful for the welcome given today to our commitment to legislate on this issue. We are seized of the urgency and the need to bring that legislation forward in terms of taking action as a result of the consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked why we could not add resolution of this problem to some of the other legislation. At certain stages late in the night I felt that the noble Baroness shared with me and other noble Lords the feeling that that Bill already contained enough material on which to consult. There have also been odd occasions when Her Majesty's Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords commented on the rather large legislative programme going through Parliament before the next Queen's Speech.
	Notwithstanding that point, we are seized of the importance of taking action on this matter and I look forward to doing so.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to place on record the kindness and consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave to this matter throughout every stage.

House adjourned at ten minutes past one o'clock.